The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that the provision for maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be permitted to be misused by able-bodied wives who want to sit idle at home.

Justice Nidhi Gupta made the observation while upholding a family court’s order to dismiss a woman’s plea for interim or final maintenance from her husband.

“The purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to protect abandoned wives who are unable to maintain themselves from vagrancy and destitution. The said provision cannot be permitted to be misused to allow able bodied wives to sit idly at home while the husband works, earns, looks after the day to day, emotional, financial and physical requirements, and maintains the minor children as also his other dependent family members,” the Court observed.

The woman claimed she was a mere villager with no earning, while her husband worked as a mason in a factory and earned ₹12,000 per month. 

Her counsel further said she was subjected to violence by her husband and in-laws for dowry. An FIR in this regard against them is pending, the Court was told.

It was argued that the plea for maintenance was rejected by the family court only because she could not provide information about the birth of her son and had only disclosed regarding her daughter. 

After considering the case, the Court noted that the couple married in 2010 and two children were born out of the wedlock. Further, due to matrimonial discord, the wife has been living separately since July 2014.

It was in November 2014 that she had moved an application under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance from her husband.

“On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence led before it, the learned Family Court has returned the clear finding that it is the petitioner who had deserted the matrimonial home without sufficient cause,” the Court noted. 

Having read her cross examination before the trial court, the Court concluded that it was clear from her own admission that she does not want to live with the husband.

It also found that she had not filed any application for custody of the minor children who were aged between 1-3 years of age when she left the matrimonial home.

“Clearly, therefore, under the above Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance,” it said.

Further, the Court said there was no evidence to prove that the husband was earning ₹12,000 per month. Rather, it noted the Family Court found he was doing a private job with only ₹6-7 thousand earnings per month.

“Besides that, the respondent is also maintaining the minor children along with his old, aged mother. On the other hand, the petitioner has no such responsibility. The petitioner is living separately at her parental home. Admittedly, the petitioner is able bodied. However, she claims to be not working,” it added.

The Court opined that it was the first and foremost duty of the petitioner to maintain herself and proceeded to reject her plea.

Advocate Munish Kumar Garg represented the petitioner.